Emmanuel Cumplido's first place essay

Misunderstood debates, poorly defined concepts, fractured, inconsistent, and impractical worldviews, these are the staples of modern thought, and in "An Introduction to Christian Philosophy" Gordon Clark exposes them in light of the truth. These lectures originally delivered at Wheaton College stand among the writings of many philosophers and theologians as a formidable dose of sound thinking. Their central thesis is that knowledge is only possible from God’s revelation in Scripture, as stated in Proverbs 2:6 "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding"[1]. I want to expound on the three lectures by explaining some of their central points, using our God-given ability of rational thinking in drawing out their implications, and relating them to the present state of our secular culture and Christian thought.

Clark’s first lecture is a critique of secular philosophy and he divides it into four sections: epistemology, science, ethics, and religion. I’ll discuss the critique in the same order.

Epistemology is, basically, the study of knowledge. More specifically, epistemology is concerned with how we know. For the sake of brevity, but without loss of potency, Clark divides secular epistemologies into two main kinds: rationalistic, and empirical (Clark 27). I’d like to follow his arguments here, as they provide a good reference point for the rest of the way.

Clark exposes the largest problems with rationalism. Hegel’s attempt to construct a rationalist system makes it impossible for real history and the "logical dialectic" to exist as one thing, and the dialectic eliminates individuality so completely that even Hegel himself, along with his theory, would be swallowed up into the "absolute spirit" (28). The Platonic theory of forms, the best ancient version of a rationalist epistemology, though perhaps on the right track, similarly provides no way for man to know how he ought to live. Merely hearing a definition of justice will not simply "awaken" us to the pre-existent knowledge of it that Plato postulated we had. These assessments are fair and are in agreement with most secular philosophy today. Unfortunately, it seems as though in avoiding one error most modern thinking has fallen into a worse one through empirical epistemologies.

For empiricists, the goal is to derive knowledge from sense data, from experience. Aristotle could be called the "father" of the tradition, and Clark’s critique illuminates how so many modern ideas about how we know, or what we know, are built on false edifices. Some questions for Aristotle are how do we get a definition of man, a definition of justice, or of equality from sensation (29)? A more troubling question Clark presents is how do we gain knowledge of the categories without which we could not think at all (30)?

Take Aristotle’s category of "relatives" as a case study. A relative is something that is of something else, like a cousin of mine (32). If something is not an x of another thing, one can call it a primary reality, a substance (32). Substances are individuals. A human, a tree, a bird, a mountain, a rock, all these things are substantial realities for Aristotle. Unfortunately, one can dismantle this whole system fairly quickly, and Clark does.

Remember, both the idea of substance and the category of "relatives" are supposed to arise from sense experience, so how do we determine whether something is a substance? Aristotle would consider a man to be a substance, but men change all their physical parts don’t they? Yes, says Aristotle, but throughout this change a man remains himself, and since a man is not a relative (a man is not a man of something), a man is a substance (31). The problem is that Aristotle would also like to identify many of the parts of a man’s body, like a head, as substances. This throws the whole enterprise into a nebulous haze. Clark points out "we could not know that a head is a head unless we knew its relation to a body" (33)….

Moving on to whether science can furnish us with knowledge, Clark tears down its very foundations, causality and the supposed "uniformity of nature" (38). Because a purely empirical approach to knowledge fails to even aid us in telling whether an atom, a rock, a mountain, or a mountain range are real things, Clark addresses Kant’s a priori system. Can the category of cause help provide us with knowledge of the physical world in the form of scientific laws by combining the categories with sense experience? The problems here are also glaring.

Kant’s category of cause is too bare to furnish us with any kind of knowledge. Simply put, the a priori category of causality only implies that we should think that there are causes, full stop. Adding the idea of "the uniformity of nature" only implies that we should think that, if one situation were the same as another, the same result would ensue. However, no situation, strictly speaking, is identical to another. We often appeal instead to "similar" situations, and use induction to generalize our past experiences hoping that we’ve seen all factors involved in the process (40). It’s a rather sloppy procedure, and leads to the conclusion: "the Kantian category cannot authorize us to assert the universality of any law of physics…" (40).

The reason for Clark’s statement above is that we cannot be sure that we know all the variables playing into a certain interaction, and often slightly different conditions produce results counter-to all our previous experiences. In modern quantum mechanics, there is even the question of whether human observation itself alters the behavior of the physical world. A more elementary example Clark mentions is the behavior of water when it falls under 39 degrees Fahrenheit (40). Before this temperature water contracts, below this temperature, water expands: "No principle of the uniformity of nature could have warned us ahead of time" (40)….

Before moving on to Clark’s assessment of secular ethics, some interesting observations on the philosophy of science can be made. Clark’s lectures were delivered in 1966. The same year, philosopher Carl Hempel published a landmark work entitled The Philosophy of Natural Science that promoted what is called the D-N model of scientific explanation. Basically, the model suggested that science is a cumulative, cognitive enterprise that gets closer and closer to the true laws of nature by conducting tests and controlling variables. This work dominated the philosophy of science for thirty years. If Clark’s views had been heeded sooner, it would not have been so painful for scientists when Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions swept across academia and uprooted this view, replacing it with a more skeptical position where science is seen as a trade constructed by societal needs, made to solve problems it deems important by methods it thinks are appropriate. Clark, in his espousing of "operationalism" saw these deficiencies and limits of science decades before Kuhn pointed them out. There are now a plethora of academics touting the same ideas and, as a result, academia is in complete despair for knowledge. One can only hope that there is a turn to the true source of knowledge and away from the idol of science that has captivated the minds of many in the past several decades.

Ethics and religion are areas of life that secular philosophy has failed so completely in, that it has now taken-up the attitude admitting its failure with pride. Nonetheless, much of the world thinks and acts as though ideas that are easily discredited can actually provide them with a moral compass, or a sense of "religion". I think it’s fair to say that Clark takes down all options.

Some believe that a simple desire to "do good" can be their guide to making decisions. Even many professing Christians lack a firm Biblical foundation for ethics and as a result conform to the pattern of this world. Utilitarianism ties to this general sentiment shared by so many. Its’ basic claim is that in all our decisions we should seek the greatest good for the greatest number (45).

The problems are obvious. How do we know what is good? How could we ever know all the good and bad results of our actions will have within the next week, never mind upon the rest of human history? More basically, why should we seek the greatest good for the greatest number in the first place, as utilitarianism says we should? More troubling, what if what I think is the greatest good for the greatest number is something that you think will result in some of the greatest evil for everyone? What do we appeal to then? There’s not much else to say for utilitarianism.

The idea of morality as "a social code" also flounders in practical life, and flounders on really defining what is "good". If we believe that morality rests simply on the norms established within a particular society, what do we appeal to if we are confronting someone about an action we believe is wrong if in their culture it’s considered good? Quick answer: We have nothing to appeal to. Clark wryly comments that on this idea of ethics "…agreement depends on not knowing the meaning of terms" (48). We can agree that we’re all doing good, as long as we don’t give a consistent definition for the good. Thus, the word can mean everything, and no longer means anything….

Existentialism and "humanism" also boil all our decisions down to personal feelings, without any principles to guide us. Clark says "…when existence is so free that he [man] creates his own essence, there can be no norm independent of an individual’s choice" (54). This is straightforward enough. The tie to humanism is not too difficult either. Though humanists purport to be striving for "the pursuit of truth, the creation of beauty, the realization of love and friendship, and the delight of sharing with others…" these ideals cannot be established through reason alone, or through empirical means, and thus the humanist must face up to the same inability to justify his decisions.

One wonders how such obviously useless ideas of morality face up to the atrocities of life, but such is the result of not taking our God-given ability to reason seriously. Few think through the implications of their beliefs beyond one step. All of these systems abandon reason and ironically stem from "academics" through history. Contrary to what so many Christians assert today, it is more thinking, not less, that is needed.

Moving from secular philosophy to "The Axiom of Revelation" in his second lecture, Gordon Clark lays the outlines for a systematically consistent and true Christian worldview that can answer the questions left dangling, a rare anomaly in this day and age.

We have seen that secular philosophy cannot get off the ground at all. We cannot know anything by our own efforts. If we start with reason, all practical matters are left unsettled, if we start with experience, all reason is merely human construction. Thus, we must start somewhere else. Clark states, "…revelation should be accepted as our axiom, seeing that other presuppositions have failed" (59).

From the axiom "The Bible is the Word of God," we can know everything within Scripture, and anything implied by Scripture. For Christians today who are used to trying to defend the faith on more "evidential" grounds, this may seem strange. But, when Christians try to defend the faith by appealing to science, they must confront the aforementioned problems, when appealing to history, they are relying on their experience of reading what other people discovered, and relying on our ability to interpret history correctly and know what actually happened. All of these presuppositions are completely baseless, they all must come back to experience, empiricism. And so, we must start with the presupposition of Scripture, and see whether it can construct a consistent worldview, "… by the systems they produce, axioms must be judged" (60).

In order to understand the Bible, we must use logic. You cannot understand one sentence of Scripture without using the law of non-contradiction. It is because of this fact that many philosophers have tried to use logic as their axiom, only to flounder into skepticism. So what is the connection to Scripture? Clark explains: "…verbal revelation is a revelation from God, the discussion will begin with the relation between God and logic. Afterward will come the relation between logic and the Scripture. And finally the discussion will turn to logic in man" (65).

The start of this discussion can be John 1:1. Clark translates it: "In the beginning was Logic, and logic was with god, and Logic was God…In logic was life and the life was the light of men." (67). This translation is completely justified. One has only to look at other possibilities of how to translate the word "logos" from the Greek to see its’ "strong intellectualism," Clark lists other possible interpretations: "to wit, computation…esteem, proportion…explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, wisdom" (67). The other most frequently cited translation is "word". The attempt to stay away from the "logic" or "reason" in the translation must be seen as a modern tendency toward irrationalism, especially when we consider this: Almost every other word that "logos" could be translated to involves something that presupposes logic, even the word "word".

This is an essential truth to understanding God, and Christians should sit and ponder the implications before reacting to it emotionally. It’s difficult to be clearer than Clark was in explaining this, so I quote: "The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking…God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity" (68). When I came to believe this truth about God’s nature, that logic is his very mode of thinking, I was relieved. This relief was connected to two more crucial topics Clark raises: logic in Scripture and logic in man.

Every statement in Scripture has a logical structure, and conveys a meaning that can be understood. In taking Scripture as the foundation for our worldview, we do not need to be afraid that we are putting it in an inappropriate place, lifting it to a level of authority not appropriate to it like a pope, because the Bible is not just ink on paper. Clark correctly says: "The Bible consists of thoughts, not paper; and the thoughts are the thoughts of the omniscient, infallible God, not those of Innocent III" (70). We do not have to strive to escape the very way we think in order to understand God; we can know the very thoughts of God through Scripture; what better starting point for knowledge than this?

We can know God’s thoughts in Scripture because God has placed his own image in us, in our very mode of thinking. The image of God in man is logic; it is rational thinking. We can thus engage in exegesis with hopes of discovering the original meanings of the words.

There are two popular tendencies I’ve come across when Christians talk about the image of God in man. Clark addresses both. One is to identify the image of God with man’s freedom; the other is to identify the image of God with morality, or righteousness. To identify the image of God in man with freedom, especially an absolute freedom like that espoused by the existentialists, is to strip God of omnipotence and say that he cannot confront man imperiously (73). Besides that fact, we can see that freedom, by itself, is useless. If I were free to make whatever choice I wanted, but could not think rationally, and could not understand the Bible, what good would freedom do me? Similarly, how could I "be moral" or "be righteous" without knowing what these things mean? Righteousness of course, is achieved only in Christ. Second Corinthians 5:21 tells us that God "hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." How would we know that if we were not able to think rationally? "The preaching of the Gospel therefore presupposes at least the rational remnants of the image of God in man" (76)….

Finally, perhaps the most frequently cited idea in evangelical circles is that faith consists in personal trust, as opposed to beliefs. This is probably the easiest idea to refute, but the hardest to get people to understand, so we’ll put it plainly. I could not trust you if I believed nothing about you. If I had no beliefs about you at all I could not know you existed. But, moving past that, whether I trusted you in a situation would depend on what propositions I already believed about humans generally, and you specifically. Imagine a minister telling people to trust in God’s salvation through Christ, and when asked for a reason why, he responds: "You do not need reasons!" Of course you do, and the Bible provides them in abundance, God is faithful (1 Corinthians 1:9), God is omnipotent (Luke 1:37), God is merciful (Psalm 103:8), Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Given this much, one might ask whether the axiom of Scripture answers other questions which secular philosophy could not, like those in ethics, politics, and science. First, we must remember that the propositions of Scripture, and all truths deducible from them, are the knowledge given to us from this axiom. We must also remember that secular epistemologies fell flat. We had no useful knowledge to gain from them whatsoever, in any field, and anything is an improvement on that. But, either way, the gains of a scriptural worldview are actually very significant.

History is one area where we are given a large dose of understanding. For one, we know all the events of which we are given an account in Israel’s history, in the life of Christ, in the New Testament church, and we are given information about the future. More importantly, we have knowledge of man’s sinfulness as explanation for atrocities in general. We also have the direct explanation and significance of the acts of God through history (105)….

Another area where revelation supplies us with invaluable knowledge is politics. The Bible established both the uses for and limits of government. Government is installed because of sin, and all its powers stem from the rights of the individual (112). The Old Testament, in the commandment against thievery and the example of Naboth, establishes the right of private property (111). How a society should provide for later generations can be gleaned from 2 Corinthians 12:14: "children ought not to lay up for their parents, but the parents for the children" (our over-reaching government entitlement programs would do well to obey that command). Peter expresses the legitimacy of obeying the civil magistrate in 1 Peter 2:13, and forbids the government to restrict the free speech and preaching of the Gospel in public in Acts 4:19, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye." (112).

The voices of men like Clark, or John Robbins, who founded their political ideologies on sound exegesis is gravely needed now, and there is seldom a politician, or Christian, who understands the need for a return to a limited government and the end of America’s slow but sure descent into totalitarianism. The recent rise of what’s known as the "Tea Party" in the states has become a textbook example of how misinformation and a lack of a coherent, systematic view can lead a group to be inconsistent. A specific example is the fact that almost all of the 2012 presidential candidates who receive approval from the "Tea Party" have been in favor of the "Patriot Act", perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul. The Patriot Act has allowed the government access over citizen’s private lives that no human entity should ever be granted, and is counter-to everything supposed proponents of a constitutional republic should espouse.

Finally, in the area of ethics, the Bible alone, as revealed truth from God, sets forth general ethical principles to apply to specific situations, it sets forth specific commandments to apply to re-occurring dilemmas in human life, and leaves the rest of our actions to the realm of moral indifference (115). God gives the commandments and principles, and since no standard of "goodness" can be established apart from God, the commandments and principles in Scripture are our only option. This is seen by anyone who undertakes a logical analysis of the ethical theories proposed through history and asks, "Why should we do that?" and "How do you know?" until the end of the road reveals that all ethical theories not based on Scripture flounder into subjectivity.

In religion, all faith must rely on truth. Truth is propositional, and the propositions in Scripture alone provide us with the means to have faith. We have already stated that you cannot trust God unless you believe some things about him first. Along the same lines, Clark notes that we cannot simply compare doctrine to a map, or a guide, as though when we are resurrected and arrive at our "destination" we will no longer have any thoughts and no longer have the beliefs about God that constitute our faith (121). Analogies like these used to promote anti-intellectual tendencies are often weak and not scrutinized at all, and are doing serious damage to persons who would otherwise wish to gain an understanding of the truth.

Perhaps a more rampant anti-intellectual phrase in the Church is that faith is not logical. For someone to say this, they have to have a misunderstanding of faith, and, embarrassingly, use a logical, intelligible sentence to convey their message. If someone really believes that logic is an inferior mode of communicating truth, they would be more consistent by not speaking one sentence, and asking God to communicate to the rest of us "truth" they grasp without their minds.

Thankfully, God has provided us with his truth, with his mind, through Scripture and his image in us to understand it, 1 Corinthians 2:16 affirms this: "We have the mind of Christ." I hope that a return to systematic, right thinking about God resurges in the Church, and thus that God’s truth would be allowed to set more people free. It is only through his words that we can have understanding of anything in our life. The idolatry of experience, of emotion, of science, of reason, will only lead us further away from the Lord and leave us despairing for knowledge. We believers must proclaim the truth. We must cling to his revelation, thanking God for giving us such a great treasure, and have hope through the knowledge of His love for us in Christ.